1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah (regarding 'Avar Zemano, Eino Nishba ve'Notel') 'Im Yesh Eidim she'Tav'o Harei Zeh Nishba ve'Notel'. Seeing as he is currently claiming in Beis-Din, Rav Asi explains 'Im Yesh Eidim ... ' to mean - that witnesses testified now that he claimed before the time expired.

(b)And Abe explains that we know that the Socher did not pay after the Sachir claimed - because the Tana is speaking where he claimed in front of the witnesses right up to the last moment.

(c)This does not mean, says Rav Chama bar Ukva, that the Sachir will now be believed whenever he claims that he has yet been paid, even years later - but only until the end of the following day.

2)

(a)Our Mishnah forbids a creditor who was not paid until after the due date expired - to claim a Mashkon himself, only through a Shali'ach Beis-Din.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk "ba'Chutz Ta'amod" - that the claimant is not permitted to enter the debtor's house to claim a Mashkon. He must wait outside, and it is the debtor who chooses what he wants to give, and gives it to the caimant (we will see shortly to whom this refers).

(c)When the Tana says 'Hayu Lo Sh'nei Keilim, Notel Echad, u'Mani'ach Echad', he means - that if the creditor received two vessels (which together are equivalent in value to that of the debt), one, a day object, the other, a night object, he retains the one, whilst returning the other.

(d)Consequently, if the Mashkon comprises a sheet and a plow - he returns the sheet each night and the plow each day.

3)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with a Mashkon) "Hashev Teshivenu lo" - that if the debtor dies, the creditor does not need to return the Mashkon to his heirs.

(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel even restricts the Din of returning it to the debtor himself - by confining the obligation to the first thirty days, after which, the creditor may sell it under the auspices of Beis-Din.

(c)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel gives a time limit of thirty days - because that is the regular time limit that Beis-Din give, as we shall see in the next Perek.

4)

(a)When Shmuel says 'Menatech Nituchi', he means - - that the Shali'ach Beis-Din is permitted to take as a Mashkon anything that the debtor has on him as he walks in the street.

(b)We extrapolate from there, 'Aval Memashkenin lo' (meaning that he is not permitted to enter his house). This clashes with our Mishnah 'ha'Malveh es Chavero Lo Yemashchenu Ela be'Beis-Din' however - from which we extrapolate that a Shali'ach Beis-Din is permitted to enter the debtor's house to take a Mashkon.

(c)To reconcile his own statement with the Tana, Shmuel will amend the Mishnah to read (not Lo Yemashchenu, but) 'Lo Yenatchenu Ela be'Beis-Din'.

(d)We try to prove that the Mishnah concurs with Shmuel, because, having taught us that the creditor is forbidden to enter his house ('Ein Memashkenin'), why does the Tana find it necessary to add 've'Lo Yikaneis le'Beiso ... ' (unless he is referring to the Shali'ach Beis-Din)?

(e)We reject this proof however - by first re-establishing the initial text, which we explain like this ' ... 'ha'Malveh es Chavero, Lo Yimshachenah Ela be'Beis-Din' (implying that only Beis-Din may take a Mashkon, though not to enter his home, whereas the creditor is not permitted to take even' in the street) 'in case he enters the debtor's house).

5)

(a)The La'av ''Lo Yachbol' Rechayim va'Rachev" ...

1. ... entails - not entering the debtor's house to take his millstones ...

2. ... implying - that to take other things, he may.

(b)Rav Yosef thinks that this La'av must pertain to the Shali'ach Beis-Din (posing a Kashya on Shmuel) - who forbids the creditor is enter the debtor's house to take anything (so that a Pasuk to forbid taking millstones is superfluous?).

(c)Rav Papa b'rei de'Rav Nachman (or b'rei de'Rav Yosef) however, refutes this Kashya too - by establishing the La'av by the creditor (despite the prevalent La'av to take anything from his house) and not to the Shali'ach Beis-Din, and the Pasuk is teaching us that if he does take the millstones, he has transgressed an additional La'av.

6)

(a)Another Beraisa learns from the fact that the Torah finds it necessary to add "ve'ha'Ish asher Atah Nosheh bo Yotzi", after having said "ba'Chutz Ta'amod", 'Lerabos Shalia'ch Beis-Din'. Initially, we establish "ve'ha'Ish" together with the phrase that follows it, to read "ve'ha'Ish va'Asher Atah Nosheh bo, Yotzi ... ", meaning that the Shali'ach Beis-Din and/or the debtor shall bring out to you the Mashkon (a Kashya on Shmuel).

(b)To answer the Kashya, we establish "ve'ha'Ish" with the previous phrase, so that the Pasuk now reads - "ba'Chutz Ta'amod ve'ha'Ish' (that the creditor shall stand outside together with the Shali'ach Beis-Din), va'Asher Atah Nosheh Bo Yotzi ... " (and the debtor brings out to you the Mashkon).

7)

(a)The Beraisa establishes the double Lashon in the Pasuk a. "Im Chavol Sachbol Salmas Re'echa, b. "Lo Savo el Beiso La'avot Avoto" - with regard to the Shali'ach Beis-Din and the creditor himself respectively. In other words the second half of the Pasuk forbids the creditor to enter the debtor's house, whilst the first half (by virtue of its redundancy, permits the Shali'ach Beis-Din to do so.

(b)Shmuel justifies his opinion in light of this Beraisa - by declaring it a Machlokes Tana'im.

(c)The Tana (who permits the Shali'ach Beis-Din to enter the debtors house) requires him to leave two beds and either a sheet for an erstwhile rich man or a mat for a poor one - even if the debtor has a wife and two children, since the Beraisa specifically precludes the Shaliach from having to leave anything for the debtor's wife and children.

8)

(a)The Beraisa states 'Kesheim she'Mesadrin le'Ba'al-Chov, Kach Mesadrin be'Erchin'. 'Mesadrin' means - leaving the basic needs of the debtor.

(b)The wording of the Beraisa is clearly inverted - since the Torah discusses Mesadrin in the Parshah of Erchin, and it is Ba'al-Chov that we learn from Erchin, and not vice-versa.

(c)We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Michah" "Michah" - that Mesadrin applies to a Ba'al-Chov, too (as we just explained).

9)

(a)The reason that the Tana requires the Shali'ach Beis-Din to leave two beds is because of a statement of Shmuel, who said - that he could cure any illness, but he did not know what to do for someone who ate a bitter date on an empty stomach or who wore a wet linen belt around his loins.

(b)The third thing that Shmuel included in his list was - someone who went to bed after having eaten without first walking four Amos.

(c)And we learn from there that the Shali'ach Beis-Din is obligated to leave the debtor two beds - one on which he reclined as he ate, the other, a bed to sleep on (which he would place at least four Amos away from the one on which he ate).

(d)When a Beraisa expert cited a Beraisa 'Kesheim she'Mesadrin be'Erchin, Kach Mesadrin be'Ba'al-Chov' in the name of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rav Nachman objected - because Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that after thirty days one sells everything.

10)

(a)We know that, in the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, one sells everything, because if one were to sell only those things that he does not need, leaving him with things that he does - then one would not sell anything, because Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is one of those Tana'im who holds that 'all Jews are princes', in which case, there is nothing that is not fit for every Jew.

(b)The Tana Kama in a Mishnah in Shabbos considers mustard-seeds and Luf (a kind of legume) as Muktzah because they are not edible in their raw state. Based on the above S'vara - Raban Shimon ben Gamliel permits the latter, because Luf is fit for ravens, and seeing as princes used to breed ravens, every Jew is worthy of doing so, and Luf is potentially useful to him.

(c)Rebbi Shimon too, who, in a Mishnah in Shabbos, permits any Yisrael to anoint his wounds with rose-oil, because that is what princes do, and every Yisrael is a prince. The Tana Kama - permits princes to do so, because they anoint themselves with rose-oil during the week, too, but not anybody else.

(d)And so do Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva. The Tana Kama of a Beraisa requires a debtor who is wearing an expensive suit to sell it and to buy a cheaper one, and to use the difference to pay off his debt. Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva (in two independent Beraisos) - declare that each and every Yisrael is worthy of wearing such a suit (so we do not force him to sell it).

11)

(a)Selling the debtor's expensive items and buying cheaper ones, as we initially thought according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, would be feasible with regard to the sheet and the cushion mentioned in our Mishnah. With regard to a plow (which were standard in those days) - the Tana would then have to be speaking about a debtor who owns a silver plow, and who would then be obligated to sell it in order to purchase a wooden one.

(b)According to those who hold Mesadrin (Shitah Mekubetzes), the creditor cannot argue that it is not his job to feed the debtor - because now that the Torah has written "u'Lecha Tih'yeh Tzedakah" (with regard to returning the Mashkon whenever the debtor needs it), he is indeed his job!